R. v. Latouche (B.A.) et al., (2010) 504 A.R. 144 (QB)

• Judge: Shriar, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: May 12, 2010
• Citations: (2010), 504 A.R. 144 (QB);2010 ABPC 166

R. v. Latouche (B.A.) (2010), 504 A.R. 144 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2010] A.R. TBEd. MY.141

Her Majesty The Queen in Right of Alberta (The City of Calgary) (respondent) v. Brittiany Anne Latouche and Cory Andre Latouche (applicants)

(A35723914Z; A35723936Z; 2010 ABPC 166)

Indexed As: R. v. Latouche (B.A.) et al.

Alberta Provincial Court

Shriar, P.C.J.

May 12, 2010.

Summary:

The applicants were charged with entering or remaining on an inflatable raft on a waterway within the City of Calgary without wearing an approved flotation device or life jacket pursuant to s. 3(1)(a) of the City of Calgary Bylaw No. 9084, Water Safety, September 1974. The applicants filed a Notice of Constitutional Question alleging that both the Bylaw and s. 60(1) of the Municipal Government Act (MGA), the enabling provincial legislation, were ultra vires the jurisdiction of the City and the Province and unconstitutional. The applicants argued that the Bylaw encroached into a sphere of exclusive federal legislative jurisdiction, namely navigation and shipping. Further, the applicants submitted that the Canada Shipping Act and the regulations made thereunder fully occupied this area of jurisdiction.

The Alberta Provincial Court dismissed the application. The sections of the MGA and the Bylaw were not ultra vires, and did not unlawfully encroach into federal jurisdiction regarding navigation and shipping.

Constitutional Law - Topic 1044

Interpretation of Constitution Act - Presumptions - Of validity - The applicants were charged with entering or remaining on an inflatable raft on a waterway within the City of Calgary without wearing an approved flotation device or life jacket pursuant to s. 3(1)(a) of the City of Calgary Bylaw No. 9084, Water Safety, September 1974 - The applicants alleged that the Bylaw and s. 60(1) of the Municipal Government Act (MGA), the enabling provincial legislation, were ultra vires the jurisdiction of the City and the Province and unconstitutional - The applicants argued that the Bylaw encroached into the sphere of exclusive federal legislative jurisdiction over navigation and shipping and that the Canada Shipping Act and regulations made thereunder fully occupied this area of jurisdiction - The Alberta Provincial Court held that the sections of the MGA and the Bylaw were not ultra vires, and did not unlawfully encroach into federal jurisdiction regarding navigation and shipping - The pith and substance of the Bylaw was to promote the safety and welfare of Calgarians involved in boating activities on the Elbow River within Calgary city limits - The court stated that "According to the dual aspect doctrine, which recognizes that it is common for spheres of jurisdiction to be occupied by different levels of government, and where as here, the principal purposes of an enactment affect matters within local competence, then the law will be upheld as intra vires the province or municipality, even if it incidentally impacts matters within the federal legislative competence under Section 91, unless it is shown to impair an essential and vital element of a federal power as opposed to merely affecting it" - The scope of the MGA and Bylaw did not impair essential elements and core purposes of the federal jurisdiction over navigation and shipping - The federal regulations required merely that "pleasure vessels" carry personal protection equipment such as a life jacket or flotation device - The Calgary Bylaw required that all persons aboard the vessel actually wear the flotation device or life jacket - There was no real incompatibility between the federal and local laws - Therefore, there was no reason to invoke the paramountcy doctrine to strike the Bylaw or s. 60 of the MGA, especially given the presumption of preferred interpretation which held that where there were two different characterizations of enactments, the court should prefer the one which supported the laws' constitutional validity so as not to result in a conflict between the two laws.

Constitutional Law - Topic 1581

Extent of powers conferred - Double aspect doctrine - General - [See Constitutional Law - Topic 1044 ].

Constitutional Law - Topic 2502

Determination of validity of statutes or acts - General principles - Aim or purpose of statute - [See Constitutional Law - Topic 1044 ].

Constitutional Law - Topic 2506

Determination of validity of statutes - General principles - Seeking interpretation which avoids invalidity - [See Constitutional Law - Topic 1044 ].

Constitutional Law - Topic 2508

Determination of validity of statutes or acts - General principles - Provincial legislation - [See Constitutional Law - Topic 1044 ].

Constitutional Law - Topic 2950

Determination of validity of statutes or acts - Pith and substance - General principles - [See Constitutional Law - Topic 1044 ].

Constitutional Law - Topic 3504

Paramountcy of federal statutes - General principles - Requirement of conflict or repugnancy - [See Constitutional Law - Topic 1044 ].

Constitutional Law - Topic 3614

Paramountcy of federal statutes - Overlapping legislation - Conflict - What constitutes - [See Constitutional Law - Topic 1044 ].

Constitutional Law - Topic 5952

Federal jurisdiction (s. 91) - Navigation and shipping - Scope of power - [See Constitutional Law - Topic 1044 ].

Municipal Law - Topic 1519.3

Powers of municipalities - Particular powers - Respecting navigable waters - [See Constitutional Law - Topic 1044 ].

Municipal Law - Topic 3842

Bylaws - Quashing bylaws - Grounds for judicial interference - Ultra vires - [See Constitutional Law - Topic 1044 ].

Cases Noticed:

International Minerals & Chemicals Corp. (Canada) Ltd. v. Canada (Minister of Transport) (1992), 58 F.T.R. 302; 1992 CanLII 2411 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 30].

Whitbread v. Walley et al., [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1273; 120 N.R. 109; 77 D.L.R.(4th) 25; [1991] 2 W.W.R. 195; 52 B.C.L.R.(2d) 187, refd to. [para. 34].

Taylor et al. v. Registrar of South Alberta Land Registration District et al. (2005), 367 A.R. 73; 346 W.A.C. 73; 2005 ABCA 200, refd to. [para. 41].

K.M. v. H.M., [1992] 3 S.C.R. 6; 142 N.R. 321; 57 O.A.C. 321; 96 D.L.R.(4th) 289, refd to. [para. 47].

Ordon et al. v. Grail, [1998] 3 S.C.R. 437; 232 N.R. 201; 115 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 55].

R. v. Kupchanko (D.W.) (2002), 164 B.C.A.C. 41; 268 W.A.C. 41; 2002 BCCA 63, consd. [para. 58].

Bell Canada v. Commission de la santé et de la securité du travail (Que.) and Bilodeau et al., [1988] 1 S.C.R. 749; 85 N.R. 295; 15 Q.A.C. 217; 51 D.L.R.(4th) 161, refd to. [para. 60].

Friends of the Oldman River Society v. Canada (Minister of Transport and Minister of Fisheries and Oceans), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 3; 132 N.R. 321; [1992] 2 W.W.R. 193; 88 D.L.R.(4th) 1; 84 Alta. L.R.(2d) 129, consd. [para. 62].

Windermere Watersport Inc. v. Invermere (1989), 37 B.C.L.R.(2d) 112; 59 D.L.R.(4th) 285 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 66].

Shell Canada Products Ltd. v. Vancouver (City), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 231; 163 N.R. 81; 41 B.C.A.C. 81; 66 W.A.C. 81; 110 D.L.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 71].

United Taxi Drivers' Fellowship of Southern Alberta et al. v. Calgary (City), [2004] 1 S.C.R. 485; 318 N.R. 170; 346 A.R. 4; 320 W.A.C. 4; 236 D.L.R.(4th) 385; 2004 SCC 19, refd to. [para. 72].

114957 Canada ltée (Spraytech, Société d'arrosage) et al. v. Hudson (Town), [2001] 2 S.C.R. 241; 271 N.R. 201; 200 D.L.R.(4th) 219; 2001 SCC 40, refd to. [para. 73].

Canadian Western Bank et al. v. Alberta, [2007] 2 S.C.R. 3; 362 N.R. 111; 409 A.R. 207; 402 W.A.C. 207; 2007 SCC 22, refd to. [para. 81].

Burrardview Neighbourhood Association v. Vancouver (City) et al. (2007), 362 N.R. 208; 241 B.C.A.C. 1; 399 W.A.C. 1; 2007 SCC 23, refd to. [para. 98].

British Columbia (Attorney General) v. Lafarge Canada Inc. et al. - see Burrardview Neighbourhood Association v. Vancouver (City) et al.

Ontario (Attorney General) v. Chatterjee, [2009] 1 S.C.R. 624; 387 N.R. 206; 249 O.A.C. 355; 2009 SCC 19, refd to. [para. 98].

Multiple Access Ltd. v. McCutcheon et al., [1982] 2 S.C.R. 161; 44 N.R. 181, refd to. [para. 100].

Statutes Noticed:

Calgary (City) Bylaws, Water Safety Bylaw, Bylaw No. 9084, sect. 3(1)(a) [para. 1].

Constitution Act, 1867, sect. 91(10) [para. 4].

Municipal Government Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. M-26, sect. 60(1) [para. 15].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Hogg, Peter W., Constitutional Law of Canada (2nd Ed. 1985) (1988 Looseleaf Supp.), pp. 15-27, 15-28 [para. 61].

Magnet, Joseph Eliot, Constitutional Law of Canada (9th Ed. 2007), vol. 1, pp. 285 to 287 [para. 83].

Mayer, Andrew, Ordon v. Grail - Ten Years Later, generally [para. 55].

Counsel:

Ola P. Malik, for the respondent, City of Calgary;

David Kamal, for the respondent, Attorney General of Alberta;

Lawrence A. Oshanek, agent for the applicants.

This application was heard before Shriar, P.C.J., of the Alberta Provincial Court, who delivered the following decision on May 12, 2010.